About an hour ago, I had a very friendly debate with one of my co-workers about humans being frugivores. As we got deeper and deeper into the discussion, he stated that since he believes in creationism and therefore does not think comparing ourselves to animals containing similar DNA/digestive systems as us is a valid argument to prove our genetic make-up is designed to eat a diet void of animal products.
I have never debated with anyone who does not believe in evolution, so I was at a loss for words, as most of my arguments are comparing our biological makeup to primates.
Rather than dismiss his opinion entirely, I want to have some "valid" arguments to present him with. He said that if I can find articles/studies about a human consuming an omnivorous diet in comparison to a human eating a frugivorous diet (something based in the past, to therefore exclude the recent changes/additions to the meat and dairy humans consume for example antibiotics, hormones etc) and which human is the healthiest, in terms of longevity, nutritional needs, functionality, physical/mental performance etc., then he will take a more serious look.
Its extremely hard arguing with someone who doesn't believe in the scientific FACT of evolution, but I am very determined to show him this is the right way for humans to eat. If any of you have any information/links that contain any information like this, I would greatly appreciate it!
"Statistically, more they research the bible, and the evidence to the contrary of what bible has to say, the closer one gets to atheism."
I was born into a catholic family and while I don't consider them Christians, you could say I was a cultural Christian too. My whole social environment was like that and I was never presented with evidence that contradicted any of it, not from people, not from the tv, no access to literature and there was no internet back then, I did that by myself at around 13-15 and left the catholic church when I was around 16-18, despite the severe social consequences that came with doing so. I was autodidact since I was a little child, I taught myself reading when I was 5, and I started my research into all kinds of stuff when I finally had access to it - philosophy, scientific theory, esoteric, occultism, buddhism, taoism, ... and with a base in philosophy & zen ( / buddhism) I started trying to view everything from as many of those perspectives as possible. Believing in everything and nothing, not putting myself in any kind of pigeonhole - like God was just one of many concepts for me, but I still wouldn't have said I was an atheist, agnostic or nihilist. My closest and best friend is very much like that too and the rest of my social environment while not that extreme are pending in that direction, but none of them was a Christian.
Then I met a real Christian, who baffled me, because .. well, he acted how a Christian should act according to the Christian believes and I haven't seen that till then. Because of that I started to do my research on Christianity, which, I came to realize, I only thought I had done and I decided to give it a try. Which actually was, in theory at least, not a big difference as it was mostly on par with the ethic I developed philosophically over the years. The only big difference was a "slight" adjustment in the way I perceived reality - and I still kept viewing everything from as many perspectives as possible - which was opening up Jesus, assuming His existence and trying to develop a relationship with Him. As I told you my background, there was no social pressure in doing so and a discard-able small chance of being brainwashed, as I seen the other Christians I came in contact with after the first as intellectual simpletons and I couldn't find any contentual value in anything they said, if anything on those two aspects it would have been the opposite. But I seen positive changes in myself and trying became being and I am now a Christian myself.
To give you an contrary example for what you described :)
I totally understand you! haha! I was raised in a evangelical christian setting, and I truly gave my heart to Jesus as a child. But as I grew up, I became disillusioned with my past beliefs and what I was seeing and experiencing in the world and in the now, and I just focused on Spirit. And I've gone through some dark times, yet I've always been supported. And the past few months, and namely the past few weeks, I have been receiving so many signs from Spirit that Christ wants me to put my faith and trust in Him once again. I say Him because it's easy, but the Christ I believe in transcends all religions and incarnations. I just love the Spirit of Jesus. So, in a very deep sense I can say with confidence that I am a Christian because, well - Miracles occur when I let Jesus be my guide and Friend.
I reply here as well, as there is no reply button to the other posting of yours.
"By saying that there is no moral values you are calling me or any nontheist immoral, yet your "christian morality" is derived from the fact of fear that if you don't follow the rules of the bible, if you don't believe in god, you'll burn in hell for ever. Your religion condones everyone, who doesn't believe, to burn in hell for eternity, which is infinitely unjust, if it was actually real."
Philosophically seen, having moral values is possible for theists and non theists alike, but they can't be absolute or objective. Longevity didn't assert that a non theist is immoral, just that the base for that moral can't be objective - and the Christian view differs from the philosophical that it assumes that there are morals coming from God, which, in the assumption of Gods existence, would be objective.
Your assumption about the base of Christian morality is wrong by the way.
"For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace."
In the whole of the bible there are different covenants between God and humans, between Abraham & God or Moses & God and they have been based on law, but with Jesus death on the cross, keeping those laws is no longer a requirement. Which is where it gets a bit complicated, but Christianity is certainly not about following a certain set of rules. It is about loving oneself, loving ones enemies, loving God, Jesus and essentially everyone - and acting according to that love. The believe part is a bit tricky, as Jesus said no one comes to the Father but through Him, but then again Jesus also said you will spot them on their fruits - on how they act, but not just that - and also whoever is not against us is for us and on the other hand:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
All together I would interpret this, that from the view of the New Testament, Christians and non Christians alike will be judged on their heart, meaning just because one calls him/herself a Christian, doesn't guarantee salvation, as does not calling oneself a Christian doesn't equal damnation. The view of the individual Christian on that subject is, that it is not on him/her to judge and if s/he does judge, s/he is either not a Christian or a Christian in need of guidance.
If you want to argue against Christianity, it doesn't make sense to argue against the Old Testament or the false doctrines of the catholic church.
If you want to argue against Christianity you should argue why acting out of love is bad, why forgiving is bad, why not judging others is bad and why it is bad to open up to Jesus / God and trying to develop a relationship with Him. Good luck with that :)
If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Thank you for replying for me...for some reason I can't view his response. Yes, again, as I stated I am not saying believers in God are in any way more "moral" than atheists, making a different point altogether.
Many prominent atheists agree (Richard Dawkins included), that in a world without God, logically, we can create whatever moral meaning we want. We may all have "evolutionary urges", but what constitutes good or bad is ultimately "up to us to decide". So if for example, a man has sexual intercourse with a horse...on an atheist worldview...there is nothing immoral or unnatural about that, it's simply a matter of personal preference. For an atheist, there is no basis to suggest otherwise.
"Longevity didn't assert that a non theist is immoral, just that the base for that moral can't be objective - and the Christian view differs from the philosophical that it assumes that there are morals coming from God, which, in the assumption of Gods existence, would be objective."
Im pretty sure this guy proves evolution is mathematically impossible, check him out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE
No he doesn't
I think you have your answer right in the original post: 'it's extremely hard arguing with someone who doesn't believe in the scientific FACT of evolution'. I would say it's actually impossible! You're not even coming from the same basic belief structure (read: you're right, they are so, so wrong) that would enable you to have a conversation.
I find it interesting that anyone would believe either evolution or creationism are "facts". Anyone who does a fair amount of research, will find significant bodies of evidence against both.
At that point, it becomes a question, of what we believe to be more plausible.
Why would we want to "argue" with someone in the first place?
Well the first thing that came to mind was that, in the Garden of Eden, they only ate fruits and plants. God told them, this is your food. Be happy :) lol, I'm paraphrasing, but basically in Eden, no animal killed another for food- they all ate plants. And fruit trees were specifically abundant, hence the whole "Tree of Knowledge" and "Tree of Life" thing. :)
I am going to simply ask this (Sorry if this is considered a hijack to this thread, I just feel compelled to spew)
Okay, GAH.Guys! Evolution and Creationism do not contradict one another! From my perspective, They can only be true if they both exist to support one another! We can fuck around and argue about the details but honestly, what is the point? Why don't we just let go of our judgements and rigid belief systems and love ourselves and one another? Isn't that what this is all about? Healing! YES, healing. It doesn't matter whether we came from primates or not because we are all connected, so either way they are our brothers and sisters just as cats and dogs and horses and whales are our family! Do you see? We can all coexist peacefully. Some of the debates on here sound so violent to me and, honestly...isn't veganism about nonviolence? Practice what you preach, my friends.
"We can fuck around and argue about the details but honestly, what is the point?"
Nicely put. Healing. The moment we no longer argue for the fun of it or increased insights, but just to be right it usually turned bad. Aside from arguing it is also difficult to correct an error as a lot of people take an offence in that, as they are emotionally involved. When to speak up, when to stay silent - an interesting judgement call :)
By the way, it depends on how one defines creationism if it contradicts evolution or not. Plain creationism doesn't, as it only states that everything was created by God (to keep it simple) - evolution could just be part of it. But a lot of people think creationism is the same as intelligent design, which is just a special form of it and argue from that wrong assumption without even knowing that there might be something that needs to be clarified first.
Which is kinda funny as a lot of them call creationists ignorant because of their own ignorance concerning the different forms of creationism :)
As a non-believer piping in for the sake of the argument, I like to think that if we were created in God's own image and in his likeness, then he would create us efficiently and beautifully. He would want us to eat the food that he designed for us. Clearly, eating animal flesh and secretions creates highly "unnatural" problems in the body, like atherosclerosis, diabetes, stroke, cardiovascular disease. It's impossible for frugivores to get clogged arteries unless they eat these products.
Perhaps someone else has already said this one.